9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er into DTA - There is no dispute before us that the clearances made by the appellants is beyond the limit prescribed by the Development Commissioner. - the appellant have chosen to supply to special category of buyers covered under Rule 19(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. We agree with the submission of the learned Advocate that Rule 19 does not exclude the clearances from 100% E.O.U. from i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the quantity permitted by the Development Commissioner into DTA. In respect of permitted quantity, it is claimed that the appellant supplied the same as inputs to manufacturer of excisable goods who ultimately exported the said product. For this purpose, it is claimed that they produced CT-2 certificate issued in favour of the recipient unit by the officer of the in-charge of the recipient unit. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ., Noida, reported in 2003 (154) E.L.T. 651 (Tri.-Del.) and in the case of Paras Fab International v. CCE, Jaipur, reported in 2003 (153) E.L.T. 549 (Tri.-Del.) which held that Rule 13 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 was applicable in respect of clearances made from 100% E.O.U. He also relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Madurai v. Renuga Soft-X Towels, reported in 2007 (217) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion of the learned Advocate that Rule 19 does not exclude the clearances from 100% E.O.U. from its purview. The decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Kurt-O-John Shoe Components (I) Ltd. and Paras Fab International (supra) support the contention of the learned Advocate. 7. In the light of the above, we set aside the order of the lower authorities and allow the appeal with consequential relie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
